Bloate v. United States

Media Items
Advocates
Mark Thomas Stancil (argued the cause for the petitioner)
Matthew D. Roberts (Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the respondent)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
08-728
Petitioner: 
Taylor James Bloate
Respondent: 
United States

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Bloate v. United States U.S. ___
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_728)
Facts of the Case: 

Taylor James Bloate was convicted in a Missouri federal district court on counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. In a pretrial motion, Mr. Bloate moved to dismiss arguing that there had been a Speedy Trial Act violation. It was denied. The Act requires that a defendant's trial begin within "70 days after the indictment or the defendant's initial appearance, whichever is later." However, it excludes "any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant." Following his conviction, Mr. Bloate appealed, arguing that his motion to dismiss was improperly denied as the court excluded too many days in its calculation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed Mr. Bloate's conviction. It recognized that six circuits hold that "pretrial motion preparation may be excluded, if the court specifically grants time for that purpose" and that two do not. Here, the Eighth Circuit sided with the majority in holding that the district court properly excluded days from the time of Mr. Bloate's indictment to his trial and therefore there was no violation to the Speedy Trial Act.

Question: 

Is time granted to prepare pretrial motions excludable under 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(1)?